Big Picture Question

[Damilis]

Okay, hopefully i wont get flamed outta town for this possibly dumb question:

I understand that major code changes happen from version to version, and that requires releaseing new patches, etc. But why will a core db from, say 5.5, be incompatable with, say 0.6.2 ? Is the the db structure, aka collumns and relationships that changes or is it something else?

I am curious because the closer we (by we i really mean the Devs!) get to getting a 'perfected' emu server, then , usually, the smaller the changes are from ver to ver and am wondering if its still to soon to start thinking about a standardized DB format, reguardless of content. Ideally, with identical db formats, one could simply switch from "0.6.2-traditionalEQ" db to "0.6.2-WickedCrazyCustom" db by way of updating an .ini and restarting server.

Additionally, a standard would ideally allow for a more stable software package.

Yes i remember this comming up a few years back, but like i said above, maybe now is the time, or maybe really soon.

Pros/Cons... what do yall think?

[sdabbs65]

Originally Posted by Damilis

Okay, hopefully i wont get flamed outta town for this possibly dumb question:

I understand that major code changes happen from version to version, and that requires releaseing new patches, etc. But why will a core db from, say 5.5, be incompatable with, say 0.6.2 ? Is the the db structure, aka collumns and relationships that changes or is it something else?

I am curious because the closer we (by we i really mean the Devs!) get to getting a 'perfected' emu server, then , usually, the smaller the changes are from ver to ver and am wondering if its still to soon to start thinking about a standardized DB format, reguardless of content. Ideally, with identical db formats, one could simply switch from "0.6.2-traditionalEQ" db to "0.6.2-WickedCrazyCustom" db by way of updating an .ini and restarting server.

Additionally, a standard would ideally allow for a more stable software package.

Yes i remember this comming up a few years back, but like i said above, maybe now is the time, or maybe really soon.

Pros/Cons... what do yall think?

My Guess is the db structures, have new Fields in them...
ie: augments; were never in the older releases.. thats why it changes all the time...to keep up with the jones's.

[mystic414]

Yeah, database tables change frequently as we add support for new features or re-arrange things to make more sense.

[Damilis]

Well what i was really talking about was a standardization format.

Example:
The first 30 columns in the items table is required to be the same for any eqemu db from here on out (except for major binary revisions of course) and any extra data that an individual server might add is required to be in column 31+.

That way, you can run a query on your own servers items table only returning the first 30 columns, then do a dump on the results and be able to post a viable, working database to contribute to the eqemu cause... althewhile keeping any inhouse 'propritary' info to yourself.

Ideally, one can use these querys as a sort of data-adapter between a customized server and a standardized database.

Additionally, by having a standardized db schema, then it *should* be easier to detect the format of a db and determine compatability with a .exe

what do yall think? is it worth the effort?

[Cisyouc]

3 problems I see with that.

1. If a server has custom columns in their items table, chances are, their items are unique and aren't really modeling after anything in particular (like EQLive), so why would they contribute? Why not just play on their server?

2. If such a server did contribute items, chances are the columns 31+ they are dropping contain necessary information to make that item work as intended, otherwise, they wouldn't have the column. So such an contribution may not really be worth it anyway because it is not how it was originally designed to be.

3. All servers of the same version share the same database schema unless modified. If a change in code has required the schema to be changed for the server, chances are, the server isn't going to be contributing database information (specifically, items).

[Damilis]

I totally agree with everything you said Cisyouc, however i think i didnt phrase my post correctly. I was merely talking about the standardization from a devs/db creator point of view. Example: EQServer x is running 6.0 db and when 6.2 comes out they have to do quite a bit of work to change the db over to the new schema. Why couldn't it be more standardized to ease the process?
Maybe a modular style array of .sql's....
eh well, its early/late and i need to gather my thoughts before posing more ideas. Thanks for listening.